Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS <br />ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: <br />b. (21 Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission <br />The Board considered making one reappointment to the Chapel Hill Parks and <br />Recreation Commission. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that one of the things discussed when he was the liaison <br />with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council is that there is not much communication with <br />other recreation advisory boards. He wonders if the Chapel Hill representative comes to the <br />Orange County Recreation Board meetings to report. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that the groups met together in April. She does not <br />remember the representative ever coming to their RPAC meeting. There is a representative <br />from Chapel Hill on the RPAC. Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Gordon to follow up <br />on the RPAC with haw this person can communicate with the RPAC. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to <br />reappoint Pete Schwartz to the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission to a second full <br />term ending June 30, 2008. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />Commissioner Gordan asked John Link to communicate this information to Recreation <br />and Parks Director Lori Taft. <br />e. Property Tax Refund Request <br />The Board considered adoption of a refund resolution related to one (1} request for a <br />property tax refund in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. <br />Edward Tang said that the property tax he has paid from 2000-2004 was overcharged by <br />over $2,100. He asked far a refund due to a clerical error. His house is only 3,026 square feet, <br />but he was billed far 3,300 square feet. He asked for a refund of $2,167.34. <br />John Link said that they empathized with Edward Tang, but the County Attorney and Tax <br />Assessor have reviewed the material and statutes, and they have recommended denying this <br />tax refund. <br />County Attorney Geof Gledhill said that there are two reasons why this request should <br />not be approved. One is because the courts have held that the clerical error that occurred here <br />is not the kind of clerical error that allows for a tax refund. The other reason is that the error in <br />measurement was run through the schedule of values of 1997 and 2001 and the value of his <br />house was greater with the incorrect measurements. The tax office found that the net result <br />was less square footage, but there was an increase in one area and a decrease in another. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis said that Geof Gledhill is clear on the abstract that if a refund is <br />in violation of law it may be recovered from any County Commissioner that voted for the refund. <br />He said that this law has been in effect since the 1930's and this should be part of their <br />legislative proposal next year. He wants to know who made the mistake here. Tax Assessor <br />John Smith said that his department made the mistake and the house was listed in 1999, and if <br />they had listed it correctly the taxes wauld have been greater. <br />Chair Carey said that they would not be able to honor his request for a refund. <br />Edward Tang said that this is a matter of principle. He is asking for a fair and honest <br />system. The money is nat the issue. <br />Chair Carey understands his frustration and there was a mistake made, but if the values <br />had been applied appropriately, then the taxes would have been more. <br />